IN THEIR NEVER-ENDING QUEST to SEEM "RELEVANT" (DESPITE BEING ALMOST 84 YEARS OLD) the A.M.P.A.S. HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THEY PLAN to HOLD a "LIVE CONCERT" of NEXT YEAR's MUSICAL OSCAR NOMINEES (BEST SONG and BEST SCORE CONTENDERS) at UCLA's ROYCE HALL JUST DAYS BEFORE THEIR MARCH 2nd CEREMONIES. HERE's the LINK to READ COVERAGE of the IDEA in THE L.A. TIMES.

I disagree. I think that the live performances help the show, just like anything they add that's not presenting an award (sketches, pre-recorded parodies, etc.).During the last ceremony, they cut or reduced a lot of that because they prioritized other stuff, such as the over-long opening sequence -- Big mistake!

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I don't think the Academy is suggesting that this "concert" concept would necessarily "replace" Best Song performances within the regular Oscar broadcast, and that the fact that they're not (at this point) talking about the "concert" being broadcast suggests it will not necessarily mean the songs will be excluded from the formal ceremonies.

I've kind of lost any interest or respect for The Oscars. A lot of people made a big deal out of the jokes that Seth MacFarlane made at this year's show, but the thing with comics like him is that they don't mean what they're saying. I know I've said this already, but it bears repeating: They do and says things for their Shock Value. And guess what? It worked! Not just on the negative side, but on the positive side as well. A lot more people watched the Oscars this year. The ratings for the live broadcast haven't been that great for the past few years (so I read).

Another thing I'll have a hard time forgetting is their pick for Best Animated Movie: Brave was better than Wreck It Ralph? I don't think so!

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum